The Bigelow Essays

All 29 essays that won a prize are now published here.  I've only read the top essay, although I am not particularly impressed by it.   I'll be reviewing it in the near future in my other blog.  I'll probably end up reviewing one or two of the others too, but I'll pick and choose the best.  But it's going to take an eternity to read them all.

On that note, Keith Augustine and Michael Sudduth are going to have their work cut out finding time to read them all and then castigating them all!  😁

Apple aims to launch self-driving electric car in 2025

Just read the following article:



Apple aims to launch self-driving electric car in 2025, says report

Article says:

Bloomberg reported that the ambitious targets have been set by Field’s replacement, the Apple Watch software executive Kevin Lynch. He is aiming for a fully self-driving car within four years//
He can aim, but it will be a spectacular miss.

He can aim, but it'll be a spectacular miss.

Hostile reactions to the evidence for an afterlife

I read this Mail article concerning ghosts.

In the comments someone says:

Why we pay the BBC to promulgate such nonsense at further expense to the vulnerable sadly bereaved I have no idea.

I often hear this sentiment that such anomalous experiences shouldn't even be mentioned. So, there are certain characteristic anomalous experiences that have been experienced across human history and across all cultures, but they shouldn't even be mentioned? Shouldn't even be discussed? Why?
Because it's obvious that people are simply making up these stories? And this explanation is so obvious that no one should even be allowed to discuss them?
Do these "sceptics" ever worry that their conviction is an artefact of the culture they find themselves born in? That had they had lived in a different time or place they would view these experiences very differently?
How can they be certain that these experiences are made up or are mere hallucinations? Are we allowed to ask that, or is not even that permitted?

Bigelow competition for the best essay on the evidence for an afterlife

The results of this competition have recently been announced.  Go here.  Apparently all 29 essays that won a prize will shortly be freely available to read.  I'd just like to make a few comments.

By far the main obstacle to an acceptance of an afterlife is the notion held by the intelligentsia that an afterlife is an "extraordinary claim". Any evidence, no matter how persuasive, is typically simply written off as not being extraordinary enough. This being so, simply outlining the evidence in its various forms will be insufficient if we hope to convince skeptics, particularly so for those of an academic persuasion. The question of why an afterlife is considered to be an extraordinary claim needs to be addressed and rebutted. This involves underlying philosophical issues (e.g. does the fact damaged brains lead to damaged minds entail the former produces the latter as many skeptics allege?).  Unfortunately, since the competition explicitly asked for the best evidence, I fear none of these essays will devote much space to such issues (the explicit emphasis on evidence is the reason why I didn't submit an essay to the competition myself).

It would have been far better if the competition were open to any essays that persuasively argue that the survival (afterlife) hypothesis is a reasonable one and, furthermore, more reasonable than the annihilation hypothesis. The essays could then have had the option of either simply addressing the evidence, addressing the underlying philosophical issues, or ideally, addressing both. Then the essays, as a collective whole, would be more likely to present a more rounded and robust appraisal of the various reasons to regard the belief in an afterlife as being a reasonable one.

The problem with all the pro-afterlife material that currently exists is that the vast majority of it doesn't touch the philosophical issues and this competition simply perpetuates this imbalance.  My suspicion is that most of these essays will largely regurgitate the evidence that is already out there and will do little to persuade skeptics.  But we shall see.

Slagging off world-renowned physicists.

I get people antagonistic towards me as I apparently "slate and slag off" world-renowned physicists. I guess when they say "slate and slag off" they mean my impartial assessment of their pontifications on various philosophical issues. And why do they get angry? Because these world-renowned physicists have achieved vastly more than me.

Peculiar that we live in a world where certain individuals, due to their fame, are allowed to spout arrant nonsense and one isn't allowed to draw attention to this.

Competition for the best essay on the evidence for an afterlife

The results of a competition for the best essay on the evidence for the existence of an afterlife.

 Announcement BICS EssayContest November 1, 2021

1st Prize	Jeffrey Mishlove Ph.D.	$500,000
2nd Prize	Pim van Lommel M.D.	$300,000
3rd Prize	Leo Ruickbie Ph.D.	$150,000
	Michael Tymn	$  50,000
	Stephen Braude Ph.D.	$  50,000
	Nicolas Rouleau Ph.D.	$  50,000
	Bernardo Kastrup Ph.D.	$  50,000
	Elizabeth Krohn	$  50,000
	Sharon Rawlette Ph.D.	$  50,000
	Jeffrey Long M.D.	$  50,000
	Michael Nahm Ph.D.	$  50,000
	Julie Beischel Ph.D.	$  50,000
	Alexandre Rocha Ph.D. et al.	$  50,000
	David Rousseau Ph.D. et al.	$  50,000
	Robert Mays et al	$  20,000
	Chris Carter	$  20,000
	Steve Taylor Ph.D.	$  20,000
	Christopher Kerr M.D., Ph.D.	$  20,000
	Bruce Leininger	$  20,000
	Vernon Neppe M.D., Ph.D.	$  20,000
	Helane Wahbeh N.D. et al.	$  20,000
	Chris Roe Ph.D. et al	$  20,000
	Peter Fenwick M.D. et al	$  20,000
	Walter Meyer zu Erpen	$  20,000
	Akila Weerasekera Ph.D.	$  20,000
	Greg Taylor	$  20,000
	Nick Cook	$  20,000
	Andreas Sommer Ph.D.	$  20,000
	Sam Parnia M.D. Ph.D. et al	$  20,000

I don't know why in our culture there is this obsessive focus on evidence.  We live in a science obsessed culture that doesn't seem to understand that evidence is often viewed through the lens of certain metaphysical suppositions about the world, and certainly this is the case with the question of whether there is an afterlife.

The sticking point for acceptance of an afterlife is the widespread belief that an afterlife is an extraordinary claim. Just looking at the evidence does nothing to address this.  In particular, people are convinced that the fact a damaged brain leads to a damaged mind entails that the brain must somehow produce the mind.
So the philosophical considerations are crucial. It doesn't seem that these people understand this though.  

I also note that most of these people that have won a prize I've heard of, and most have a  Ph.D after their name. If they really were looking for the best essay, it seems kind of coincidental that all these people are already renowned for writing about this sort of stuff. Which suggests that whether or not you win a prize is more dependent on who you are than how impressive the essay is.

My other blog has many essays addressing the philosophical issues.

A comment on a skeptical article on Near-Death Experiences

I read the following article two days ago:

Can We Explain Near-Death Experiences?

The author concludes that, "NDEs are probably caused by changes in brain activity rather than direct contact with a supernatural dimension".


Why does he think this?

Briefly because:

1. Strokes, seizures, and brain injuries can lead to experiences reminiscent of NDEs.
   
   
2. Brainwave oscillations have been observed in rats having heart attacks.
   
   
3. Psychoactive drugs -- ketamine, DMT -- resemble NDEs.

First of all, the author assumes the idea that the brain produces consciousness is entirely unproblematic. That's false, it's extremely problematic. There is, what has been labelled, the hard problem of consciousness.  This is a problem engendered by the notion that it is the brain that somehow produces consciousness.  I explore this problem in a few places in this blog.  For example, in part 2 in this blog post and also this blog post, especially from part 3 onwards. Incidentally, I should add that if consciousness is not generated by the body, this doesn't mean there aren't any problems.  Nevertheless, they don't appear to be the apparent intractable problems associated with "the hard problem".     

Secondly, it ignores the fact that there is no detectable brain activity at the threshold of death, which is when NDEs appear to take place.

Thirdly, it ignores all the anomalously acquired information that NDErs give when they come back from the brink.

Clearly, NDE type experiences are facilitated by an appropriately dysfunctional brain. One possibility is that's because the brain produces NDE's, and indeed all other conscious experiences.  But that possibility encounters the difficulties I mention above. Arguably, difficulties that are insurmountable.  

There is another possibility. Let's assume there is an afterlife.  Consider that we do not normally have contact with this afterlife realm whilst in our embodied state. Why would this be the case?  I suggest it would have to be because the brain inhibits access. Sometimes this is referred to as the filter theory of the mind-body relationship.

What, though, if the brain is not functioning correctly?  Could it always perform this inhibiting function regardless of how the brain is altered?  Surely not.  And, if it doesn't, this might occasionally allow our consciousness to have a glimpse of other realities that we may enter into after death (and note the word realities, the afterlife might not simply be one place but might consist of possibly innumerable realms).  Such a hypothesis is supported by not only what we label NDE's, but also mystical experiences, psychedelic trips, and the occasional reports of people recovering their mental faculties near death.  I should also note that recent research into psychedelic induced experiences suggest they are initiated by reduced activity of the brain.  All of which gives weight to the notion that the brain serves to inhibit consciousness rather than produce it.  I address objections to this inhibiting or filter hypothesis here and here (latter half).  

Incidentally, the skeptical article originally included a video that now seems to have disappeared in the two days since I last looked (nor can I locate the video in the link he now provides).   I actually linked to and discussed this video around 5 years ago in my other blog here.  Unfortunately, the link to the video on there is now dead too.  This video is elusive!  Fortunately, it can be watched on facebook here (at least at the time of typing this).

Also see:
NDE’s, burden of proof, and Ockham’s razor
Guardian Article on Near Death Experiences (NDE's)
Reasons not to scoff at ghosts, visions and near-death experiences